Germany was famous for its correctness. Forget about it. The “diesel scandal” killed that dream. (Forget about serious ISO 26262 audits in Germany.)

Finding “defeat devices” (deception implemented in the software which runs the motor control) is much easier than auditing the protection of mental health in OH&S management systems. No surprise that German employers easily pass OHSAS 18001 audits even though the management of mental workload issues is not included in their OH&S management system if the CAB doesn’t really care about that.

Don’t trust in audits whether it is about environmental protection or credit ratings: http://comment-news.com/source/www.nytimes.com/2015/09/25/business/international/volkswagen-emissions-pollution-regulations.html/:

“[...] Carmakers ‘shop’ for the best deal from agencies across Europe and directly pay for their services,” he [Greg Archer, a former director at Britain's renewable-fuels regulator] said in a recent [2015] statement on the Volkswagen scandal. “The job of the engineer overseeing the test is ultimately dependent on the next contract from the carmaker.”

The company did not have an immediate comment.

Automakers have the same incentive to shop around for lenient testing companies that bond issuers have long had to shop around for the credit rating agency that would give them the highest credit rating. Overgenerous ratings of complex financial instruments based on mortgage prices were widely blamed as helping to set the global financial crisis. [...]

Also OHSAS 18001 certifiers easily might get corrupted by their customers who won’t appreciate an honest audit. Too thoroughly audited employers just would move to a more lenient CAB. That is why I kow of a company in Europe where the management of mental workload issues is not included in their OH&S management system. They got their OHSAS 18001 certificate nevertheless. The CAB also had tolerated that that company moved much too late from OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007 in the year 2013. The accreditation authority – lenient as well – did not consider that to be a deviation.

Certification mills have good working conditions in Europe. That ugly make-believe business makes employees sick. The “diesel scandal” confirmed my impression that audits can be an ugly farce.

Rajasekaran Nadanam (Deputy Manager – EHS at Faiveley Transport) asks “OHSAS 18001 – What Questions you can Expect?” and gives the an answer in http://www.ehspedia.com/safety/ohsas-18001-what-questions-you-can-expect/.

DNV-GL sendet mir Werbung zu Seminaren über ISO 9001, DIN EN 9100, ISO 14001, ISO 22000, ISO 27001 und ISO 50001. Größere Schwierigkeiten scheinen die Betriebe in Deutschland jedoch mit OHSAS 18001 zu haben. Das liegt vermutlich nicht nur daran, dass der heftig umstrittene Standard ISO 45001 vielleicht 2017 der Nachfolger dieses Standards für Arbeitsschutzmanagement werden soll. (Mit ISO 45001:2016 wird das nichts mehr.)

Ich wünsche mir von der Zertifizierungsbranche Trainings und kritischere Audits insbesondere im Arbeitsschutz. Hier sind die Arbeitnehmer die “Stakeholder”, was meiner Ansicht nach bei Audits von Arbeitsschutzmanagementsystemen für die Arbeitnehmervertreter immer noch nicht ausreichend spürbar wird. Auch sollte DNV-GL Arbeitnehmervertretern Seminare anbieten, die sie zur Durchführung interner (ISO 19011) Audits von Arbeitsschutzmanagementsystemen befähigen. Auch die Gewerkschaften vernachlässigen das Thema der Standards für Arbeitsschutzmanagementsysteme. Das ist schlecht, denn der Arbeitsschutz in Deutschland verträgt durchaus noch Verbesserungen bei der disziplinierten Umsetzung sowohl freiwillig ausgewählter wie auch gesetzlich vorgeschriebener Regeln.

Vielleicht sollte doch einmal die gesamte Struktur nicht nur der der behördlichen Aufsicht, sondern auch des privatisierten Audit(un)wesens unter die Lupe genommen werden. Denn vor welchen Unannehmlichkeiten müssen sich Zertifizierungsauditoren (und die Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle, also die DAkkS) mehr fürchten: vor unzufriedenen Arbeitnehmern oder vor Unternehmen, die sich bei der Auswahl von Zertifizierern vermutlich nicht für den strengsten Auditor entscheiden werden? Die Arbeitnehmer sind zwar die “Stakeholder”, aber wirklich respektiert werden sie weder von der DAkkS, noch von den Zertifizierungsauditoren. In Deutschland ist das verständlich, denn die behördlichen und privaten Prüfer haben ja auch keinen überzeugenden Grund, solch einen Respekt zu entwickeln. Dafür tragen auch die Gewerkschaften eine Verantwortung.

Arbeitschutz braucht nicht zu funktionieren, solange er nur gut aussieht.Quelle: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Grigory_Potemkin.PNG

These incident catecories are based on definition 3.8 and 3.9 in OHSAS 18001:2007. The data should be easy to obtain. Just quarterly categorize OH&S incidents using the twelve categories shown below. Then count the incidents per category and enter the sums for each category into the table.

 
In words:
Incidents which …
    1.1.1.1   … have caused physical ill health
    1.1.1.2   … have worsened physical ill health
    1.1.2.1   … could have caused physical ill health
    1.1.2.2   … could have worsened physical ill health
    1.2.1.1   … have caused mental ill health
    1.2.1.2   … have worsened mental ill health
    1.2.2.1   … could have caused mental ill health
    1.2.2.2   … could have worsened mental ill health
    2._.1._   … have caused injury
    2._.2._   … could have caused injury
    3._.1._   … have caused fatality
    3._.2._   … could have caused fatality

Or in other words (even closer to OHSAS 18001:2007):
Incidents in which …
    1.1.1.1   … physical ill health occurred
    1.1.1.2   … physical ill health worsened
    1.1.2.1   … physical ill health could have occurred
    1.1.2.2   … physical ill health could have worsened
    1.2.1.1   … mental ill health occurred
    1.2.1.2   … mental ill health worsened
    1.2.2.1   … mental ill health could have occurred
    1.2.2.2   … mental ill health could have worsened
    2._.1._   … injury occurred
    2._.2._   … injury could have occurred
    3._.1._   … fatality occurred
    3._.2._   … fatality could have occurred

 

“Incident” and “ill health” according to OHSAS 18001:

• Incident: Work-related event(s) in which
  • an injury
  • or ill health (regardless of severity)
  • or fatality

  occurred, or could have occurred.

• Ill health: Identifiable, adverse physical or mental condition arising from and/or made worse by a work activity and/or work-related situation.
  (Regrettably, there is no similar definition for “ill health” in the ISO 45001 drafts (1st and 2nd CD).)

The underlined words met resistance from employers when moving from OHSAS 18001:1999 to OHSAS 18001:2007. In internal communications they tried to replace “ill health” by “desease” and “identifiable” by “diagnosable”. They also tried to hide “regardless of severity” from their employees. “Made worse” was not welcome, as the term did not allow them to reject incidents which worsened an already existing ill health. And “could” was a challenge to employers, because due to that term they could not ask affected employees to prove that they actually suffered from ill health. The reasons for resisting against “mental” where quite similar to the reasons for mentioning “psychological factors” only in the notes to clause 7.1.4 of ISO 9000:2015 rather than clearly in the clause itself.
 
Discussion:

• http://www.facebook.com/groups/1426157327626692/permalink/1637599459815810/
• http://redd.it/3l03g2

 
Download:

• http://platinumcsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/IncidentClassification_OHSAS18001.pdf

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAZF9TJrC_E

Published on Nov 11, 2014
Andy, the auditor, lets you in on a secret in the new ISO 9001:2015 standard.

I know companies where internal auditors do audit their own work or, at least, the work of close colleagues - and the external auditors as well as the accreditation authoritiy knows about it. That’s how the audit business can be run in Germany. The auditors keep covering up the nonconformities of the work of their department.

They did not comply with ISO 9001:2008 which demanded that auditors do not audit their own work. How does the ISO deal with that? ISO 9001:2015 makes incestous audits more enjoyable: “The organization shall select auditors and conduct audits to ensure objectivity and impartiality of the audit process”. That is more difficult to measure. It can be measured by auditors who audit their own work. The incestous auditors will find ways to be happy with their work or the work of their close colleagues. ISO 45001 probably will inherit this disease. Who audits these auditors?

See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=”ISO+9001:2015″+”ISO+19011″+”impartial”

http://www.zalando.de/zalando-logistik/

[...] Zusätzlich lassen wir einmal pro Quartal an allen unseren Logistikzentren sowie an den Standorten unserer Dienstleistungspartner die Arbeitsbedingungen und Sozialstandards durch die DEKRA als unabhängiges Institut überprüfen. Diese Überprüfungen haben uns in den letzten Jahren stets sehr gute Arbeitsbedingungen bescheinigt. So ergab der letzte DEKRA-Bericht am Standort Erfurt beispielsweise ein Gesamtergebnis von 1,3 (von 1 – sehr gut bis 4 – nicht akzeptabel). [...]

Welche Meßlatte verwendet die DEKRA bei ihren Audits? Zalando arbeitet mit “eigenen Sozialstandards” für die eigenen Standorte und externe Logistik-Dienstleister (dpa 2013-02-18). DEKRA prüfte also nur das, was die Zalando-Unternehmensleitung für nötig hält. Bereiche wie der Arbeits- und Gesundheitsschutz wurden nicht gemäß weitgehend anerkannten Standards geprüft, die Absprachen mit den Mitarbeitern bei der Umsetzung der Standards fordern. Schafft Zalando es nicht, sich an anerkannten Standards zu orientieren?

Außerdem können die DEKRA-Auditoren nur beurteilen, was das Unternehmen ihnen zeigt. Auditoren könnten die Darstellungen der Arbeitgeberseite mit Arbeitnehmervertretern verifizieren, aber nach meiner Erfahrung suchen externe Auditoren leider nur sehr selten das Gespäch mit Arbeitnehmern bzw. Arbeitnehmervertretern. Hier sollten Auditoren von sich aus mehr Eigeninitiative entwickeln.

Welchen Wert hat eine Überprüfung durch DEKRA überhaupt? Ist sie hilfreich für das auditierte Unternehmen oder kann das auditierte Unternehmen dem Ruf der DEKRA-Auditoren auch Schaden zufügen? Wofür geben sich Zertifizierer wie DEKRA her? Zalando hat in Erfurt nicht einmal einen Betriebsrat, mit dem die DEKRA-Auditoren ihre Beobachtungen hätte verifizieren können (wenn sie das überhaupt gewollt hätten). Bei einem derart großen Betrieb schadet das Fehlen einer Arbeitnehmervertretung der Glaubwürdigkeit von Audits sozialer Standards. Kleiner Hinweis: Das Arbeitsschutzthema “psychische Belastungen” war der Anlass für die Gründung des ersten Betriebsrates in einem Apple-Store.

Und welchen Wert hat eine Überprüfung durch die behördlichen Aufsicht? Kann man von der Gewerbeaufsicht und der Berufsgenossenschaft erwarten, dass sie von ihr übersehene Mängel nachträglich überprüfen oder wird ihnen zur Gesichtswahrung die Verteidigung ihrer bisherigen Beurteilungen wichtiger sein? Wer kümmert sich wirklich um die Arbeitnehmer?

Meine Frage an den Ausschuss:

Subject: Frage an Auditoren.eu [bzw. OHSAS18001.de]
Date: Sun, 02 Mar 2014 12:12:51 +0100
From: Goetz Kluge <...>
To: Head-of@auditoren.eu, [...]

Sehr geehrte Damen und Herren,

Nach OHSAS 18001:2007 gelten für “Vorfall” und “Erkrankung” Definitionen wie in http://vorfall.info beschrieben. Unter Anderem gilt, dass Vorfälle Ereignisse sind, die Erkrankungen zur Folge hatten oder hätten zur Folge haben können. Gemäß OHSAS 18001:2007 muss dabei die Schwere der möglichen Erkrankungen unberücksichtigt bleiben.

Dürfen Auditoren von Zertifizierern es tolerieren, dass ein Arbeitgeber in der Arbeitsschutzschulung seiner Mitarbeiter verschweigt, dass die Schwere möglicher oder tatsächlicher Erkrankungen kein Kriterium für die Einstufung eines Ereignisses als “Vorfall” ist?

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Götz Kluge
[...]

 

---

2014-03-02 – Habe ein erstes und freundliches Feedback bekommen. Den Arbeitskreis gibt es seit 2012 nicht mehr.

BS OHSAS 18001 is a standard for Occupational Health & Safety (OH&S) management systems. Conformity assessment bodies (CAB) conduct audits at the sites of clients who applied for a certification or who want to get re-certified. In Germany the CABs are accredited by the Deutsche Akkreditierungsstelle (DAkkS).

Accredited CABs in Germany for OHSAS 18001: http://www.dakks.de/en/content/directories-accredited-bodies. Leave all selections to “ALL” except “Certification for Managementsystem 2″, where you select “T64=Occupational Health and safety managementsystem: BS OHSAS 18001″.

Auditing is about assessing conformity. Strangely, in Germany it may occur that CABs support clients in acting against the law. When auditing the OH&S management system at your client’s site based on OHSAS 18001, the client may try

• to take confidentiality as an excuse to hide findings concerning OH&S from the works council and
• to exclude the works council from audits in order to prevent employee representatives from reporting OH&S issues to the auditor.

CABs should try to avoid this. Even best audit practices are not above the law!

Audits require confidentiality, but with regard to occupational health & safety issues, confidentiality does not allow clients of CABs to lock the work council out. CABs should not support clients in hiding information in a way which interferes with the duties of works council in Germany. Interfering with the legitimate work of the works council is a penal offence in Germany. Don’t issue certificates to clients, who act against the German Works Constitution (and against OHSAS 18001:2007 4.4.3.2).

The following exerpt from the German Works Constitution tells you which information on OH&S issues the works council of your client’s sites are entitled to ask for and where and when the works councils are entitled to participate in the audit.

The German Works Constitution (excerpt for OHSAS 18001 Auditors)

Section 2 – Status of trade unions and employers’ associations
(1) The employer and the works council shall work together in a spirit of mutual trust having regard to the applicable collective agreements and in co-operation with the trade unions and employers’ associations represented in the establishment for the good of the employees and of the establishment.

Section 80 - General duties
(1) The works council shall have the following general duties:
1. to see that effect is given … safety regulations … for the benefit of the employees;
[...]

Section 87 – Right of co-determination
(1) The works council shall have a right of co-determination in the following matters in so far as they are not prescribed by legislation or collective agreement:
1. matters relating to the rules of operation of the establishment and the conduct of employees in the establishment;
[...]
7. arrangements for the prevention of accidents at work and occupational diseases and for the protection of health on the basis of legislation or safety regulations;
8. the form, structuring and administration of social services whose scope is limited to the establishment, company or combine;
[...]

Section 89 – Health and safety as well as environmental protection at work
(1) The works council shall endeavour to ensure that the provisions on safety and health at work and accident prevention as well as environmental protection are observed in the establishment. It shall support the competent occupational safety and health authorities, the statutory accident insurance institutions and other relevant bodies in their efforts to eliminate safety and health hazards by offering suggestions, advice and information
(2) The employer and the bodies referred to in the second sentence of subsection (1) shall be obliged to invite the works council or the members it delegates for that purpose to participate in all inspections and issues relating to safety and health at work or the prevention of accidents and inquiries into accidents. The employer shall also consult the works council concerning all inspections and issues relating to environmental protection in the company, and shall immediately inform it of any conditions imposed and instructions given by the competent bodies relating to safety and health at work, the prevention of accidents, or environmental protection in the establishment.
(3) For the purposes of this Act, environmental protection in the establishment comprises all personnel and organisational measures as well as all measures relating to the establishment’s buildings, rooms, technical equipment, working methods, working processes and work places that serve the protection of the environment.
(4) Members delegated by the works council shall take part in discussions between the employer and the safety delegates within the context of section 22 (2) of the Seventh Book of the Social Code.
(5) The works council shall receive from the employer the minutes of inquiries, inspections and discussions in respect of which subsections (2) and (4) provide for its participation.
(6) The employer shall supply the works council with a copy of the accident notification to be signed by the works council under section 193 (5) of the Seventh Book of the Social Code.

Section 119 – Offences against bodies established under this Act and their members
(1) The following offences shall be punishable by a term of imprisonment not exceeding one year or a fine, or both:
[...]
2. Obstructing or interfering with the activities of the works council, the central works council, the combine works council, the youth and trainee delegation, the central youth and trainee delegation, the combine youth and trainee delegation, the ship’s committee, the fleet works council, the representative bodies of the employees referred to in section 3 (1), the conciliation committee, the arbitration body referred to in section 76 (8), the grievance committee referred to in section 86 or the finance committee,
[...]
(2) Proceedings concerning the offence shall be instituted only on application by the works council, the central works council, the combine works council, the ship’s committee, the fleet works council, the representative bodies of the employees referred to in section 3 (1), the electoral board, the employer or a trade union represented in the establishment. The application may be withdrawn.

Source:
   Co-determination 2013,
   Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs,
   Information, Publication and Editorial Office
   53107 Bonn, Germany

In Facebook hatte ein bei der Deutschen Akkreditierungsstelle akkreditierter Zertifizierer im letzten Jahr einen Lehrgang “Auditor für Arbeitsschutzmanagementsysteme nach BS OHSAS 18001:2007″ angeboten. Ich stellte ihm in einem Kommentar zu seiner Seminar-Ankündigung in Facebook die kurze Frage: “Wurde in dem Seminar die Mitwirkung von Betriebsräten an Audits thematisiert?” Nicht mehr, nicht weniger. Das Zertifizierungsunternehmen löschte diesen Frage.

Viel professioneller und hilfreicher reagiert die TÜV-SÜD-Akademie: https://www.facebook.com/tuevsuedakademie/posts/10152225658444595.